Does anyone else feel like the generational gap is too big?

[Beev]

I didn't know how to word the thread title without making it a paragraph , but basically, I feel like the people who "run the world" are getting too old. Not in that 'parents just don't understand' way, but they just all seem completely wrong and out of touch with their customers.

You constantly see very, very, very poor decisions being made, but because the company is huge it doesn't matter. Take the whole Playstation hacking thing. Sony specifically didn't tell it's customers about the hack too soon because it didn't want to "bewilder" customers. The fuck? And in the end Sony will be just fine. Sounds like some higher up didn't understand wtf was going on, and I see this all the damn time.

Our country, and lots of other places in the world, are using archaic systems that were designed in the early to mid-1900's that just don't work (the insurance system being probably the biggest). Blockbuster is another example. They waited way too long to get digital, and now they're dying. Same for Borders bookstores. These older executives are still mostly trying to target the same demographic they were 30 years ago, and that demographic doesn't matter anymore.

I don't think every company is like this, but I'm constantly surprised with how often I see such poor decisions made. And the decisions don't make them money, they already make too much for the poor decision to matter or affect it long term.

Christ I need my coffee...

 

[Texashiker]

Does anyone else feel like the generational gap is too big?

From my parents (early 60s), to me (43 years old), to my kids (24 - 15 years old), there seems to be a major generation gap, and most of it is technology based.

Since my mom and dad have retired, they seem to be catching up woth technology pretty good. Dad has a laptop, and mom and dad have a facebook.

Me on the other hand, I dont even have a smart phone.

My kids, especially my daughter, she has a smart phone and post to facebook all the time.

As for companies, I dont think they are changing with the times - blockbuster and netflicks is a good example. Just look at newegg and circuit city - one is still in business and one is not in business.

Technology moves so fast these days, its difficult to keep up. 10 years ago things where simple, CPUs where changing, but everything else pretty much stayed the same. DSL and cable was becoming more popular. But 10 years ago we did not have all of the smart phones, tablets, ereaders, ipads, ipods,,,,,,, and everything else.

 

[Saint Nick]

Apply this to politicians and it's a whole 'nother ball game. Some of those guys really need to retire.

 

[highland145]

Friend works for AT&T wireless. They have a government mandate for 911 that has to be in place by a certain date. Takes a bunch of different departments to implement the plan. She can't get them to get on board because of internal politics. It's a mandate. Why aren't they on the same page?

CEO failure, maybe?

 

[nickbits]

Change is hard. Doing nothing is easy.

/thread

 

[rivan]

It's going to get worse over time.

Almost everyone I know are having kids later in life. Wife and I were well into our 30s.

 

[highland145]

It's going to get worse over time.

Almost everyone I know are having kids later in life. Wife and I were well into our 30s.

What are you waiting on? Hit it.



<---37 when the boy showed up. One and only one.

 

[rivan]

What are you waiting on? Hit it.



<---37 when the boy showed up. One and only one.

Haha, just didn't want kids that early - too selfish and knew it.

We were pregnant 0.8 seconds after she stopped the birth control. 2 kids later, we're done

Net population growth: 0.

 

[yllus]

A big part of it definitely is the technological gap, but a bigger part of it is people rarely care about what's best for the company - they instead care about what's best for them. It's hard to get managers at Blockbuster or Borders to promote the idea of shifting massive amounts of the company's budget away from themselves and towards digital initiatives. They'd rather run the company into the ground and get one extra year or two out of being employed there.

 

[Anubis]

A big part of it definitely is the technological gap, but a bigger part of it is people rarely care about what's best for the company - they instead care about what's best for them. It's hard to get managers at Blockbuster or Borders to promote the idea of shifting massive amounts of the company's budget away from themselves and towards digital initiatives. They'd rather run the company into the ground and get one extra year or two out of being employed there.

yeppers. this applies to the people in government as well. They dont do what is right for the people. they do it for themeslfs while running the country into the shitter

http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/ten_strikes

 

[Saint Nick]

yeppers. this applies to the people in government as well. They dont do what is right for the people. they do it for themeslfs while running the cuntry into the shitter

http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/ten_strikes

I feel a mass exodus to Canada in the next 25 years. Maybe 50.

 

[rocadelpunk]

The definition of adulthood is changing too.

Previous generation you were out of the house anywhere from 18-22. Adolescence is now prolonged and you find plenty of people living with their parents (for whatever reasons) into their mid 20s.

I think that will also have a hand in what Rivan was saying about having kids later.
End result is you're going to have an entire generation in their late 20s/early 30s who haven't had to fend for themselves, yet will be our "leaders".

 

[darkswordsman17]

OP, I get what you're saying, but I'm actually seeing the opposite. Its not a real age gap, its a maturity gap. The scary thing is, I actually feel many older people are actually a lot better about what you're talking about (getting past silly things, moving on, adapting and adopting new things). I'm constantly impressed by older people who still want to work and learn. They might get frustrated and struggle, but they also tend to have more appreciation and respect for what so many of us take for granted.

Personally, most of the drama and politics and crap like that is actually focused around younger, more immature people from what I've personally seen. They have little knowledge so they have little understanding of why big changes need to be made, and little motivation to actually work to make the changes.

I think in the end, most people just are not open to adapting and changing. The reason it seems so pronounced now is that there's some very huge changes going on in the world, and also you're made much more aware of it (for instance you cite a lot of business anecdotes).

 

[gaidensensei]

We live in exponential times. I was just having this conversation yesterday...

Look at computing in the 40-60's, it was pretty much nonexistent for the mainstream.
in the 70's, some came to life, in the 80's, it was much stronger and the arrival of standard video game systems, Microsoft/DOS, and the 90's were the "mainstream" rage of the first glimpse of computing. Look at the 00's and compare that to just 10 or 20 years ago, it's a huge step with devices becoming even smaller.

Someone born in the 80's sees differently than someone born in the 90's, who sees even differently than kids born in the new millennium.

Kids born after 2010 are going to have one heck of a different world.

I kind of get the feeling along will go creative imagination, in comes routine thinking.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Surely you can't think that the younger generation wanting to elbow aside the older generation is a new phenomenon! While the details may be different, the general nature of the complaints are always the same. Given you survive few more decades, you may experience it from the other side too!

 

[Texashiker]

Look at computing in the 40-60's, it was pretty much nonexistent for the mainstream.
in the 70's, some came to life, in the 80's, it was much stronger and the arrival of standard video game systems, Microsoft/DOS, and the 90's were the "mainstream" rage of the first glimpse of computing. Look at the 00's and compare that to just 10 or 20 years ago, it's a huge step with devices becoming even smaller.

My dad was adopted by his grandparents, who were born in the mid 1890s. They lived in a rural part of east Texas and did not get electricity until my dad was 6 years old, which was sometime around 1954.

Now my dad has a laptop, wireless internet, and facebook.

In the past 100 years mankind has probably made more technological leaps then any other time in human history.

 

[Wyndru]

Net population growth: 0.

As long as you die before your kids have kids

 

[VirtualLarry]

I kind of get the feeling along will go creative imagination, in comes routine thinking.

Now you're talking about changes to our educational system, where "being different" (often a hallmark of someone capable of "critical thinking") is considered "bad".

 

[SZLiao214]

We live in exponential times. I was just having this conversation yesterday...

Kids born after 2010 are going to have one heck of a different world.

Yeah, because by the time they are 2 the world will end.

Its crazy the type of tech kids have now a days.

 

[ViviTheMage]

I definitely agree with you on this. The government is probably the worst .

Some companies need some younger blood to get going it seems like ... they're out of touch with the day to day running of their company.

 

[Skel]

I didn't know how to word the thread title without making it a paragraph , but basically, I feel like the people who "run the world" are getting too old. Not in that 'parents just don't understand' way, but they just all seem completely wrong and out of touch with their customers.

You constantly see very, very, very poor decisions being made, but because the company is huge it doesn't matter. Take the whole Playstation hacking thing. Sony specifically didn't tell it's customers about the hack too soon because it didn't want to "bewilder" customers. The fuck? And in the end Sony will be just fine. Sounds like some higher up didn't understand wtf was going on, and I see this all the damn time.

Our country, and lots of other places in the world, are using archaic systems that were designed in the early to mid-1900's that just don't work (the insurance system being probably the biggest). Blockbuster is another example. They waited way too long to get digital, and now they're dying. Same for Borders bookstores. These older executives are still mostly trying to target the same demographic they were 30 years ago, and that demographic doesn't matter anymore.

I don't think every company is like this, but I'm constantly surprised with how often I see such poor decisions made. And the decisions don't make them money, they already make too much for the poor decision to matter or affect it long term.

Christ I need my coffee...

It’s easy to play armchair quarterback and say that some company keeps making wrong decisions when you don’t have to deal with the fallout of the decisions. The bigger a company gets the harder it is for them to change streams. There’s a ton of employees that are affected, and if you make the wrong call, and buyers don’t want the change you could put people out of work. Does it make for outdated thinking? Of course it does. It’s easier for new companies like Google to change the thinking mode because they a starting from that point. It’s also easier for companies like Apple to change radically because they didn’t have that much to lose at the time. Not changing would have probably meant death.
Blockbuster gambled wrong. It could have easily gone the other way. The content hasn’t changed, just the delivery model. When downloading and streaming first started, I knew tons of people that weren’t with it because they wanted the physical copy they could do whatever with.

 

[darkamulets]

Friend works for AT&T wireless. They have a government mandate for 911 that has to be in place by a certain date. Takes a bunch of different departments to implement the plan. She can't get them to get on board because of internal politics. It's a mandate. Why aren't they on the same page?

CEO failure, maybe?

Oh the stories I wish I could share about this, internal politics is the first thing anyone that can make a decision looks at in AT&T. Managers care more about what their management thinks so you end up watching some stupid videos (over 15 hours worth) about them giving keynotes about how great we are than actually performing your day to day functions. I get monthly bitch mail about this crap. Ask your friend if LWD (she'll know what it means) is the same for her.

 

[ShawnD1]

A big part of it definitely is the technological gap, but a bigger part of it is people rarely care about what's best for the company - they instead care about what's best for them.

This seems to be a newer thing. Back in the Good Old Days, your job was almost like an extension of your family. You get a job at X company and you stayed there for 20, 30, 40 years. Some people actually did care about the wellbeing of the company (within reason) because that was their life line; the company going under means you're fucked.
Things are a lot more sketchy today. It's a lot harder to find people who have been with the company for 10 solid years. If you don't plan to be there very long, then obviously you shouldn't care too much about the company. Who cares if it goes bankrupt, it's not like you were going to work there next year anyway.


Actually I'm just making shit up. People have always been lazy fucks. If there's a shortcut way of fixing something, you know that's how it goes. If doing the right thing makes you look bad, you know it won't happen.

 

[nageov3t]

people are living longer and the economy is making it harder for them to retire.

 

[Aikouka]

yeppers. this applies to the people in government as well. They dont do what is right for the people. they do it for themeslfs while running the country into the shitter

http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/ten_strikes

Apologies in advance... this is going to sound very P&N-ish, but the problem is that we have an elected government in a media-centric society. An elected official worries more about their reelection than attempting to do what is right. A somewhat opinion-laden example could be how a senator for a corn-producing state would try and push and/or vote for any pro-ethanol measures regardless of how they truly affect the consumers (other than the ones in his own region).

It isn't completely off-base... he is supposed to represent his region, but aren't they also supposed to represent the overall body that they govern as a whole (in this case, the United States)? To use a Game of Thrones reference, am I simply being "too Eddard" about my view of how a politician should operate?

But anyway... I'd say the media-centric nature of elections is why you'll rarely see an official back a pro-marijuana bill... who wants to be known as "the guy that supported drugs" when around comes election time? A senator that had a few affairs still probably has a better chance of being reelected!

EDIT:

Hmm, I re-read my post and it seems very anti-elected official, so I should add that there is a bit of blame in the voters as well.